Over

[Anonymous No.15832488]

Its over for carbon capture

>World’s biggest carbon capture plant quietly sold off for a fraction of what it cost to build it

>The plant never operated at more than a third of its total capacity in its 13 years since being built.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/worlds-biggest-carbon-capture-plant-quietly-sold-fraction-what-it-cost-build

Occidental Petroleum quietly sold off a carbon capture facility – the world’s largest — that was built into a natural gas processing plant in Texas, according to a Bloomberg Green investigation.
The plant, called Century, never operated at more than a third of its capacity since it was built in 2010. According to statements the company made to Bloomberg Green, the technology worked, and the facility continues to operate as designed.

[Anonymous No.15832494]

>>15832488
The green scam is privatizing profits and socializing losses. I'm sure they were paid handsomely by the taxpayer to build it.

[Anonymous No.15832500]

>>15832494
Wouldn't doubt it, Al Gore owns a lot of Occidental Petroleum and he knows all the ways to scam the government too, since he was involved in writing a lot of the relevant legislation.

[Anonymous No.15832501]

>>15832488
>hype up carbon capture
>get the politicians to sign bills expanding fossil fuels because hey, we can just capture all of it amiright?
>barely operate it for a decade, just enough to keep eyes off it
>sell it off and write off the losses as fossil fuel investments a decade later

[Anonymous No.15833845]

>>15832501
>acquire government subsidies gibes up front
>once the free government money runs out and has all been transferred to al gore's bank account, stop spending any private funds on the project.
>sell whatever remains for one last profit from the project and proceed to the next scam

[Anonymous No.15833864]

Carbon capture is fucking stupid. Simple thermodynamics would show it would take many times as much energy that was gained from burning hydrocarbons in order to extract all the CO2 from a diffuse atmosphere. The only way carbon capture would work is through extreme energy abundance from advanced fission or nuclear fusion.

Regardless, there are way cheaper ways to regulate the Earth's temperature, like stratospheric aerosols. Silicon dioxide is the classic proof of concept since volcanoes expel vast amounts, however it is acidic and can destroy ozone. An alternative is to use calcium carbonate aerosols, literally chalk dust, which is basic and wouldn't acidify the atmosphere. These aerosols also don't stay suspended for long, so it would probably be safe to experiment incrementally.

Though the point of all the climate change regulation is not to solve the problem, but as a form of rent-seeking to jack up energy prices. Hopefully Western elites get a clue, since China is not beholden to the same kind of corruption and will want to have cheap energy to fuel its rising empire.

[Anonymous No.15833875]

>>15832488
I will never understand the hubris of humanity, of which I myself am guilty of. It is genuinely appalling to me how often our species goes out of its way to try and "fix" the planet, instead of letting the planet "fix" itself naturally. "Draining swamps for more land," is bad, but building hurricane barriers to preserve human land is good? Damming up waterways is bad, but using dam hydroelectric turn wheels is good? Reducing the human population AND selecting for good genes in animal stock is good, but human eugenics programs that cull genetic defects and favors for intelligence is bad?

I just cannot understand my peers.

[Anonymous No.15833880]

>>15832501
This. Carbon capture was only ever used in test plants so fossil fuel companies could claim that fossil fuels weren't bad for the environment.

>>15833864
Carbon capture is the use of solvents in smokestacks to remove carbon dioxide and certain pollutants from the exhaust of power plants. It does take some power from the plant to operate, but it works and is thermodynamically sound. It's just not ever done because it raises the cost of generating power.

[Anonymous No.15833903]

>>15833880
Carbon sequestration of the exhausts of power plants makes more sense since the CO2 concentration is much higher. However direct air carbon capture is seriously dumb since we're talking 400 ppm.

Anyway the path forward is through next level energy technologies like nuclear. Deep geothermal would be very interesting too if we can cheaply drill down into hot dry granite. That may require powerful lasers or some kind of non-abrasive technology like electro-pulse boring.

[Anonymous No.15833937]

>>15832488
carbon capture was and will always be a meme, just plant moar trees.

[Anonymous No.15833945]

>>15833875
lmao if you believe that eugenics work you should not be here. It will never work.

[Anonymous No.15833967]

>>15833903
You should really work on your reading comprehension and try to understand the topic before you go off on tangential nonsense next time.

[Anonymous No.15834193]

>>15833937
But trees are carbon capturing, Anon. Is it a meme or no?

[Anonymous No.15834204]

>>15833937
>>15834193
Trees are not a solution to decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Try the math for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15834265]

>>15834204
Honestly interested now. Why not? I mean, I know they release CO2 at night, but at least a part of it should be bound as nutrients.

[Anonymous No.15834402]

>>15834265
First do the math on the amount of trees you would need to sink a years worth of carbon dioxide emissions, then look up the number of trees in an acre of forest, then compare the land area to the land area of Earth. That area would need to be planted every year to compensate for emissions.

Next, the respiration is largely irrelevant because carbon is still stored, but that carbon will be released when the tree dies. As it's decomposed most of the carbon is released as carbon dioxide or methane, and some is incorporated into decomposers like fungi and bacteria, which die and decompose into the soil. Soil also decomposes and respires and so a mature forest will emit as much carbon dioxide as it sinks. You can look up figures for the carbon storage of an acre of mature forest and compare that figure to the emissions to see that we will quickly run out of space if the trees are left standing indefinitely. That means we would need to cut them down and somehow prevent decomposition. One way to do that is as building materials or furniture, but those still decompose over time and you can do the math on how much lumber you could expect to get every year and compare it to the global lumber demand to see how absurd it would be to try to use the wood as quickly as it's grown.

One option that could work at a large scale is the creation and incorporation of biochar into agricultural soils. Charcoal is 90%+ carbon and it is stable for thousands of years making it a good choice for carbon sequestration. When "charged" with nutrients and microbes is becomes a soil amendment with a lot of beneficial properties. Charcoal can be fed to livestock or added to compost to charge it which has benefits for both livestock and compost.

Only about 1/3 of the mass of the wood becomes charcoal, so you can do the math on how absurd it would be to try to sink our emissions as biochar indefinitely. We will never be able to sequester our emissions without cutting them significantly.

[Anonymous No.15835055]

>>15834402
you can get a better answer using the amount of co2 stored per acre (40 tons/yr) instead of doing it tree by tree and neglecting the contribution of things like understory plants

[Anonymous No.15835442]

>>15832501
perhaps the solution is to get the government to FUCK OFF?
Stop trying to ban things. If you don't like oil, don't buy it.

[Anonymous No.15835562]

The solution is GLOBAL COOLING to reveal ancient coasts and expose vast areas to archeological scrutiny, plus providing new land to settle.

[Anonymous No.15835581]

>>15835055
Do the math on it. It genuinely doesn't matter. It's just an order of magnitude calculation to see how absurd of a proposal using trees to remove carbon dioxide is.

[Anonymous No.15835884]

>>15835581
>plants don't absorb CO2
lol
you are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.15836081]

>>15835884
That's not what he said

[Anonymous No.15836171]

>>15835884
It's not an issue of can or can't. It's an issue of scale.

[Barkun No.15836178]

>>15836171
Meds. Now.

[Anonymous No.15836420]

>>15836178
>He can't do high school algebra

[Anonymous No.15836440]

>>15833864
>>15833880
Correct.
>>15833903
Carbon capture cannot work. It's simply the thermodynamics.
Energy from burning fossil fuels comes from breaking the C-C and C-H bonds. Carbon capture requires making new C-C or C-H bonds. The energy it takes to make CO2 into, say, methanol, is the same energy you would get out of burning methanol to CO2 and water. (assuming 100% efficiency).
Since 100% efficiency doesn't exist, carbon capture is a net negative energetic process. You have to put energy into it overall, which means it can't provide any energy for external processes.

[Anonymous No.15836462]

>>15835442
>hur dur society has absolutely 0 influence on you
No fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.15836510]

>>15836440
Nobody said it had to. You can take the energy from clean sources. The goal is not to produce energy, it's to bind CO2.

[Anonymous No.15836511]

>>15836510
Why would you intentionally starve the ecosystem like that?

[Anonymous No.15836518]

>>15836510
>The goal is to bind CO2, not produce energy.
It's more energy efficient then to just NOT burn the fossil fuels.
You know producing energy is what produces a lot of that CO2, so if you just don't burn fossil fuels then you don't need to carbon capture.

[Anonymous No.15836520]

>>15836511
To capture CO2.
>starving
Come on now...

[Anonymous No.15836524]

>>15836518
Yeah, that's cool. But we were talking about carbon capture. Not the reason for doing so.

[Anonymous No.15836526]

>>15836524
>we're talking about carbon capture, not the reason for doing so.
If there isn't a reason to do it, why are we talking about it?

[Anonymous No.15836531]

>>15834402
What about bamboo? Grows super fast.

[Anonymous No.15836534]

>>15836526
This you?

[Anonymous No.15836537]

>>15836534
>alright guys we have this great new technology that's going to change the world
>It doesn't work
>Yeah but what if it did?
That's you

[Anonymous No.15836546]

>>15836531
Same problem. There's just not enough space in the world and not enough demand for the materials. Biochar is the only real way to use plants to sequester carbon over a long period of time, but because of the scale of our emissions it's not reasonable to use biochar to offset those emissions. If we reduce emissions then it becomes a reasonable option to offset our emissions and begin to deal with our cumulative emissions.

You can try offsetting part or all of your own emissions by buying lump charcoal, charging it, and working it into your soil. It costs about 0.75 $/lb where I live. Try just offsetting your gasoline use to start. A gallon of gas produces about 20 lbs of carbon dioxide which has 5.5 lbs of carbon in it, which corresponds to 6 lbs of charcoal. If you do composting then you can add it to your compost pile at around 5-20% by weight which will also reduce the methane and nitrous oxide produced by your pile. If you have livestock or pets you can crush it and add it to their feed at 1-5% by weight which will improve digestion and decrease fecal odor. If you have a lawn then you can mix it with your fertilizer, or soak it for a few days with the fertilizer if it's liquid before spreading it on your lawn.

Try it for a week and see if you feel like it's a reasonable long term solution for sequestering our emissions without reducing them.

[Anonymous No.15836552]

>>15836546
Sorry but can you get to the part where you justify why we would want to do any of this at all? Nobody has given any serious reasons why we should get rid of trace amounts of CO2 and starve our forests.

[Anonymous No.15836657]

>>15836552
Carbon dioxide is not the limiting factor for growth for most plants in the world and the warming it causes has already been negatively affecting our climate. You can read the IPCC report for details.

[Anonymous No.15836986]

>>15836657
>Carbon dioxide is not the limiting factor for growth for most plants in the world
Yes it is
>the warming it causes has already been negatively affecting our climate.
No it hasn't, CO2 doesn't cause "global warming"
>You can read the IPCC report for details.
Why would I want to read political propaganda? Its all lies

[Anonymous No.15837067]

>>15836537
Are you completely illiterate? Or just acting retarded? Blatantly honest here, go reread what you wrote.

[Anonymous No.15837199]

>>15832488
Carbon capture was always a meme, at best it takes as much energy to sequester carbon dioxide as you got from burning the hydrocarbons in the first place. In practice you're looking at 2 or 3 times as much energy to take it out of the atmosphere, and that's if you have a system that's working optimally. Unless we get an non-GHG energy source that's far cheaper and more fruitful than hydrocarbons its not happening.

[Anonymous No.15837321]

>>15836986
Take your meds. This board is about science, not science denial.

[Anonymous No.15838545]

>>15836986
>Carbon dioxide is the limiting factor for growth for most plants in the world
Its actually the limiting factor for all life, since all life ultimately depends on plant life.
We are carbon based life, access to CO2 is mandatory for our existence

[Anonymous No.15838610]

>>15837321
Are you sure? Looking at the catalog, it ain't that obvious.

[Anonymous No.15838645]

>>15835562
Maxie of Team Magma created this post, dictated but not read

[Anonymous No.15838666]

>>15838610
I wish you weren't right.

[Anonymous No.15838681]

>>15836510
Nta or even a denialist, but do you realize how much energy that'd require? With the current output of green energy today humanity would have to completely stop using electricity, completely stop fossil fuels, then run carbon capture off the current renewables for at least like 100 years just to suck a portion (not all) of the CO2 we've pumped since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It'd be unthinkable. Theoretically we could transition completely to renewables and just dedicate a portion to carbon capture, but even with that we'd have to use like 10% of the amount of electricity we currently do for that to even be in the ballpark of viable.

[Anonymous No.15839547]

>>15838681
plants do that all for free, all completely naturally without any effort from anyone. at higher atmospheric co2 concentrations, plants do it quicker and more efficiently. while they're doing that, they're also capturing solar radiation and storing it without reemitting it at any wavelength.

[Anonymous No.15839582]

>>15839547
Do the math on that.

[Anonymous No.15840183]

>>15834402
One hectare of coppiced trees yields somewhere between 5-13 dry tons of wood a year. Lets go with 9. That can be turned into about 3 tons of charcoal to be sequestered long term. If we go with a per capito emission of 10 tons of CO2, about 3.5 hectares covers all of it. The woodgases from making the charcoal can be used for heating.
Now lets make all of that a bit more productive. Reduce planting density by half and add pasture between the rows. Graze a rotation of ruminants and fowl. You can easily fit two head of cattle and 200 chickens on that area, so now you are producing high quality animal protein and reduce your emissions. The lifestock and charcoal build the soil and the pasture part of the system easily sequesters another ton of CO2/h.
With the reduction of emissions from using this system for your food production and the combined CO2 sink of charcoal and pasture, those 3.5h should still cover everything.
Since not everybody wants to be a farmer, make it a full job for someone. 1 farmer for 20 people, taking care of 70h.
Thats still more land than you have in population dense countries, but if you cut down your emission by half and only try to cover half of it by this method, it gets more realistic and the resulting landscapes will get richer and more productive over time.

[Anonymous No.15840231]

>>15840183
Jeffersonian agrarian democracy is the true ecological path.

[Anonymous No.15840251]

>>15840183
>3 tons of carbon per hectare
So that's only 13 billion hectares that need to be harvested every year! That's only 90% of the land area of the Earth! We can totally do that, right? Trees only take a season to mature, right?

There is no way to get around emission reduction. No form of carbon sequestration can compete with our emissions at the current levels.

[Anonymous No.15840257]

>>15840183
>>15840251
Actually, I included the oxygen in that, but I also missed an order of magnitude. I've been drinking. It's actually 492 033,583.125 hectares which is more than 3 times the land area of Earth. I didn't mean to give you the false hope of harvesting 90% of the land area of the Earth each year.

[Anonymous No.15840368]

>>15837067
You're the retard here. I've told you that carbon capture DOESN'T WORK
The thermodynamics required to turn carbon dioxide into something else is that same as burning that thing.

>>15838681
I am that anon. It's not about the amount of energy, it's simply the thermodynamics involved.
Since our entire energy sector is powered by fossil fuels which produce CO2, at best carbon capture simply reverses the energy we get from burning the fossil fuels which produces the CO2 in the first place, however, this assumes 100% efficiency, which is impossible. In reality it is still net CO2 output.

You are correct, the only way carbon capture becomes useful is if we used green energy sources to power it, but at that point we're not producing CO2 anymore so whats the fucking point?

So my point to carbon-captureanon-kun is that as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels this is a pointless thought experiment. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.15840452]

>>15840368
>but at that point we're not producing CO2 anymore so whats the fucking point?
You know that CO2 doesn't magically disappear when your emissions decrease, right?

[Anonymous No.15840461]

>>15840452
Yes, but if you are emitting CO2, carbon capture is still a net positive CO2 releasing process. Unless all your energy is from non-carbon sources, CO2 does not do anything.

CO2 in the atmosphere isn't hurting you right now. If we switched to non-carbon energy tomorrow we wouldn't need CO2 capture, as there's not enough CO2 in the atmosphere for it to matter.

[Anonymous No.15840466]

>>15840461
So you agree that it will still be necessary to sequester our past emissions after we cease emitting carbon and your statement was nonsense? Great, glad we had this talk.

[Anonymous No.15840469]

>>15840466
>If we switched to non-carbon energy tomorrow we wouldn't need CO2 capture, as there's not enough CO2 in the atmosphere for it to matter.

No, I don't because CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't hurt anything.

[Anonymous No.15840470]

>>15840469
Ah, I see. You're just mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15840476]

>>15832488
>man if only there was some form of cheap carbon capture we can additionally use as a renewable resource for ourselves and the environment

[Anonymous No.15840517]

>>15840470
>You're mentally ill
Please show me the data on how CO2 in the atmosphere is wounding you at this very moment.

[Anonymous No.15840536]

>>15840368
>You're the retard
At least I'm capable of basic reading comprehension and understanding the difference between
>Does Carbon capture work?
and
>Why do we need carbon capture?
You're blatantly changing the topic because there's nothing worthwhile you can say.
Go in, rrrreeeee some more about it. Doesn't change the fact that you went into a discussion about mechanism and tried to make it about muh just do something else entirely.

[Anonymous No.15840551]

>>15840536
I'm not changing the subject. I'm telling you the answer
>Why do we need carbon capture
I'm challenging the assumption you're making that we need it. We don't. Why do I hold this position? Because it doesn't work.
You can't chemically changed CO2 into anything else without wasting energy. You can't sequester it because that just moves the problem to "Well now I have all this chemical waste, what do I do with it?" (the answer is burn it, releasing CO2). or just dump it in landfills.

So, my thoughts on the matter of "Why do we need carbon capture?" we don't, because it's a flawed process based upon poor understanding of waste disposal and thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.15840853]

>>15840517
You can read the IPCC report or Google "current consequences of climate change" for yourself. Changing weather patterns have already caused droughts, floods, famines, and billions, or trillions of dollars in damages and lives. As an example , the Salt Lake Valley in Utah may be completely uninhabitable soon due to drought. As the Salt Lake dries up sediments containing arsenic are exposed and can be carried on the wind to poison anyone living in the valley. It turns out that rapidly altering the energy balance of the Earth was not a smart thing to do.

[Anonymous No.15840915]

>>15835442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[Anonymous No.15840931]

>>15840551
You're answering a question that was never asked in the context of the reply chain. That's what I'm telling you.
>the assumption you're making that we need it
I never did that. As I said, learn to read.

[Anonymous No.15841303]

>>15840915
This was a myth made up to justify the seizure of commons land. White Europeans took immaculate care of coppices and other commons.

[Anonymous No.15841399]

>>15841303
Genuinely interested in whether this is true.

[Anonymous No.15841462]

>>15841303
you know what also counts as a common? The air.

[Anonymous No.15841482]

>>15841399
Look up a good history of enclosure in England. All the commons land was fenced and sold off to the merchant class for exploitation under the justification that the peasants weren't taking care of it. Then the people who bought it did >>15841462 to it as soon as it stopped belonging to the public.

[Anonymous No.15841748]

>>15832488
Carbon capture kinda sucks (at least for now)
If it runs of non-green power, it captures less carbon than it produces.
If it runs off green power, it captures less power than would be saved id that green power replaced non-green power directly

So I think carbon capture is only really useful once all (or most) power is green and we still want to deal with carbon from manufacturing processes that have no green alternative

[Anonymous No.15842361]

>>15841462
enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is good

[Anonymous No.15842372]

>>15840931
saying
>Why do we need x
assumes
>We need x
I'm challenging that assumption. Please stop being an autistic retard and except that carbon capture is a stupid fucking idea and a massive waste of time and resources.

[Anonymous No.15842425]

>>15842372
Neither of those questions were asked, schizo. We were talking about HOW devices for carbon capture work. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.15843528]

>>15842425
they don't work

[Anonymous No.15843673]

>>15843528
>t. mental retard

[Anonymous No.15843995]

>>15843528
>>15843673
They do work, but they're impractical given how much energy they would take to operate for no product.

[Anonymous No.15844012]

>>15832488
carbon capture fails when the simple question of who is gonna pay for it is asked.

[Anonymous No.15844029]

>>15844012
Its also fails on the notion of why would anyone want to take free plant food out of the atmosphere.
Agricultural businesses spend money to produce CO2 for their greenhouse operations, taking that valuable molecule out of the atmosphere is a total massive dumb waste of resources.

[Anonymous No.15844065]

>>15843995
That may be correct, but is irrelevant for the question of HOW they work.

[Anonymous No.15844478]

>>15844029
may as well just start shitting in the streets because the fertilizer is good for local farmers

[Anonymous No.15844617]

>>15844029
t. Never grown a plant in his life

[Anonymous No.15845381]

>>15844065
It isn't
If the question is
>How do they work?
the answer is
>badly

[Anonymous No.15845392]

>>15841303
>>15841482
It's a METAPHOR you retards. It's talking about any resource, not actual common lands. Also the land was only seized after Britain became explicitly capitalist, tragedy of the commons is most commonly associated with the effects of capitalism after all.

[Anonymous No.15845402]

>>15843995
They don't? It's basic physics. See >>15840368

The only possible route we're going to keep temps below 1.5C is if we stop using fossil fuels altogether (not gonna happen).

[Anonymous No.15845417]

>>15845402
Man-made global warming isn't even real.

[Anonymous No.15845425]

The only useful form of carbon capture is the one nature already figured out, which is to convert diffuse, intermittent "free" solar energy into a more concentrated, storable form of energy you can use to power moving objects.

Any real carbon capture project will by definition involve blanketing the earth with solar panels and using that energy to create synfuels.

[Anonymous No.15845610]

>>15845425
> intermittent "free" solar energy into a more concentrated, storable form of energy you can use to power moving objects.
Which isn't happening on any human timescale

[Anonymous No.15845647]

>>15845392
>Also the land was only seized after Britain became explicitly capitalist, tragedy of the commons is most commonly associated with the effects of capitalism after all.
The Tragedy of the Commons was literally invented to justify Capitalism over traditional land organizations, under the motivated and false reasoning that capital-holders would be more incentivized to treat the land properly than communities.

[Anonymous No.15845664]

>>15832488
>Bachelor of Science in business analytics
>learned jack shit and fucked off from my classes after covid put everything in retard ez mode
>graduate this may
>just got 65k WFH job as business analyst

[Anonymous No.15845683]

>>15833864
>just give everyone silicosis, bro!

[Anonymous No.15845802]

>>15845647
The tragedy of the commons has existed for centuries, millenniums even. It just denotes over-claiming of natural resources by private entities. Also climate change isn't due to the tragedy of the commons, it's due to externalization.

There are consequences to every mile you drive with your car, there are consequences to every cruise ship, flight, wattage used, etc. Only you don't immediately feel those consequences because climate change isn't a tangible object, you can't say "climate change caused that hurricane" only something like "climate change made the hurricane 15% more intense". Humanity is bearing its effects, don't get me wrong, but it's mostly in the form of inflation and shortages so far, nothing personal like death or other losses.

[Anonymous No.15845817]

>>15845647
>>15845802
That's also the problem, I WANT the government to fuck off, I pray for it every day. However fossil fuels are subsidized, massively, excessively, by the government. They also build all this shit infrastructure which makes it practically impossible to travel without a vehicle. I WANT to stop driving and reduce my fossil fuel dependence, but the government clearly makes it difficult.

[Anonymous No.15846095]

>>15845817
>However fossil fuels are subsidized, massively, excessively, by the government.
They aren't, they're taxed massively. Solar power and wind power are subsidized, massively, excessively, by the government. Solar and wind get literally thousands of times larger subsidies than any other power source on a per unit energy produced basis. """Fossil""" fuel tally up large total subsidies only because they're actually useful for reliably producing energy, on a per kWh basis the subsidies are tiny and offset by massive taxes the consumers pay.

[Anonymous No.15846126]

>>15832488
Good, fuck that stupid scam.

[Anonymous No.15846179]

>>15845802
>The tragedy of the commons has existed for centuries, millenniums even.
It was invented by William Forster Lloyd, who was one of the early pioneers of rapacious capitalism and eugenics. We live in a more enlightened age where racist white men like him aren't the be-all and end-all of discourse, thankfully.

[Anonymous No.15846278]

>>15833864
1. It's not clear SAI's can be deployed at the altitude of standard jetliners- high emissions per payload.
2. it needs to be done continuously for decades, maybe even a century.
3. Calcium carbonate is not the front runner out of the options- Aluminium Oxide is.
4. Calcium based SAI would be better utilised directly sequestering carbon (calcium carbonate) via aquatic ecosystems and deep sea sediments.
5. rapid increase in temperature when rolled back.
6. intuitively, primary producers would benefit, but impact is unclear on ecological systems... so potentially degrade all natural carbon sinks.

Personally, I dont think it makes sense to put at least 12 million tonnes of CaCO3 into the air, 15 tonnes at a time with a rocket

[Anonymous No.15846282]

>>15834402
Yeah, you basically would need to increase the biomass (active carbon cycle) by 40 billion tonnes per year.

[Anonymous No.15846294]

>>15846282

[Anonymous No.15846302]

>>15836546
Google 'biological pump'
best option is ban fishing,

Ocean creates 50bn tonnes C biomass per year.
1% of that is sequestered in deep sea sediments forever.

ban fishing and those numbers explode.

[Anonymous No.15846309]

>>15846302
>I own the oceans!! nobody may use my oceans!!
you're just looking for an excuse to feed your savior complex and imagine yourself as king of planet earth.
you will never even own an acre of property lol

[Anonymous No.15846325]

>>15846309
good one BOT

[Anonymous No.15846489]

>>15846302
500,000,000 metric tons of carbon a year is nothing, and a ban on fishing will not change that number significantly.

[Anonymous No.15846535]

>>15836440
>Carbon capture requires making new C-C or C-H bonds.
Except it doesn't? You're conflating carbon capture and CO2 valorization

[Anonymous No.15846550]

>>15840368
>Since our entire energy sector is powered by fossil fuels
But this isn't even remotely true?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269811/world-electricity-production-by-energy-source/

[Anonymous No.15846573]

>>15836546
>>15846302
Also plants will naturally sequester carbon in soils, BUT you have to keep them undisturbed for long periods (100-1000 years), which means no tilling, tree farming or any other activity which disturbs soils. Otherwise if you dig up natural land and plant something there, even if it's something like corn you use to make biofuels, that actually releases carbon from the soil.

It's hilarious how idiots think biofuels are good for the environment, it's basically just a placebo. The final and only way to stop carbon dioxide from increasing in the atmosphere is to stop using fossil fuels altogether.

[Anonymous No.15846631]

>>15846573
I've never seen research saying carbon stays in undisturbed soils forever. Yes, icy tundra exist, but the major terrestrial biome is like, temperate grassland lol.
It's not clear that vertosols store carbon better than forest soils, even with microaggregates. and regardless, the view seems to be that soils wont retain carbon more than 10 000 years tops.
and you cant even sequester 40 billion tonnes in soil because theres a saturation point, so idk what youre on about.
and its not obvious that year round tilling for biofuel is releasing more carbon from degraded soil than adding billions of barrels of completely sequestered carbon to the cycle.

[Anonymous No.15846677]

>>15846573
Mature forests emit as much carbon as they sink. They are merely stores of carbon and the scale of our emissions means that they are too small of a store to sink our carbon.

>you have to keep them undisturbed for long periods (100-1000 years)
Biochar does this better than any other carbon sequestration strategies and even that can't compete with the scale of our emissions. It has enough other benefits that I recommend using it, especially if you compost or have livestock, but the only real solution is to reduce our emissions to the point that it becomes practical to sequester carbon.

[Anonymous No.15846690]

>>15832488
>.png.webp.jpg

[Anonymous No.15846699]

>>15846677
biochar man, can you please try and imagine where you will get 40 billion tonnes of biochar?

[Anonymous No.15846739]

>>15846699
That's what I'm saying to you. There is no way to sequester carbon emissions at the scale we produce them. Biochar is the best option in terms of ton-years of carbon storage, but nothing can keep up with our emissions. Even so, biochar is beneficial to compost, livestock, and soil and so I recommend buying lump charcoal and producing your own and using it anyway. It will sequester a little bit of carbon, but again, the only real solution is to reduce our emissions.

[Anonymous No.15846972]

>>15845381
>How well do they work
>is the same as
>How do they work
ESL?

[Anonymous No.15847738]

>>15846972
>ESL?
thats you

[Anonymous No.15848953]

>>15832488
If Al Gore is quitting the business then it must be worthless

[Anonymous No.15848964]

>>15848953
His government gibs ran out so he has to find a new way to get money from the climate grift.

[Anonymous No.15848969]

>>15836462
>society is burning thousands of gallons of unused jet fuel so that it can get the same amount of money in its budgey next year
Ok retard

[Anonymous No.15848974]

>>15846179
Satirical progressivism isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.15849120]

>>15846739
I've read through your posts ITT anon. You seem to be fairly knowledgeable, and so I'm curious about your outlook on the future: how bad do you think it's going to get? Civilization collapse? Human extinction? Something like PETM?

[Anonymous No.15849151]

>>15849120
I genuinely don't know. I feel like at some point we'll get a hold of all of our problems and deal with the existential threats we're facing, but at the same time there's enough historical precedent for people to just fuck themselves into oblivion. Part of me suspects that humans will never go extinct, but I don't think quality of life will be anything to write home about if society collapses. If market trends continue then we should be able to survive and probably repair the damage we've caused or weather the consequences while the environment deals with the damage we've caused. Ultimately nobody can know the future and there are a lot of ways we can navigate through it that will allow humanity to endure. I think we have the best chance of survival by being proactive rather than reactive and dealing with our issues as quickly and completely as we can while working towards better solutions for both man and nature.

I'm quietly optimistic for the future, but I've been expecting civilization to collapse for a while now. Hopefully I continue to be disappointed.

[Anonymous No.15849552]

>>15840466
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, professional greenhouses run their atmospheres with 1500ppm, so thats how much we should have for the whole planet for maximum efficiency

[Anonymous No.15850490]

Its never been more over than it is right now

[Anonymous No.15850513]

>>15850490
Hey now, hey now
Don't dream it's over
Hey now, hey now
When the world comes in
They come, they come
To build a wall between us
We know they won't win

[Anonymous No.15851192]

>>15832488
Just plant trees and store all the charcoal. But wait, its niggers and latinx cutting down all the trees for nothing.

[Anonymous No.15851234]

>>15851192
There are more trees alive today than there have been in all of recorded history. And next year that'll be more.

[Anonymous No.15851567]

>>15850490
if it was already that over yesterday just imagine how over it is today

[Anonymous No.15851671]

>>15833875
humanity and species are an atheist concept. all your perplexity disappears once you understand this, that there is no ''we'' no matter how many times atheists keep saying it in order to virtue signal

[Anonymous No.15851688]

>>15851234
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15852762]

>>15851671
The whole idea of humanity as a single species does not come from science, it was proclaimed by the United Nations in November 1945.

[Anonymous No.15853243]

>>15852762
>it was proclaimed by the United Nations in November 1945.
for purely political reason no doubt

[Anonymous No.15854578]

>>15846739
>>15849120
pathetic samefag replying to it's own posts

[Anonymous No.15855333]

>>15832488
carbon capture should only be integrated within thermal power plants to satisfy CO2-frenzied policymakers. Anything more is a waste of resources.

[Anonymous No.15856481]

>>15846677
no they don't, you're presuming that all of the dead material rots in a year or less, which is doesn't. you've clearly never been in a mature forest. they're loaded with dead plant material thats yet to decay and rerelease it's stored CO2. theres one area i go to where logging what permanently halted in 1954 and the old stumps are still there and still about halfway intact, sitting next to regrowth thats already over 150' tall

[Anonymous No.15857287]

>>15856481
You are flat out retarded. That material on the forest floor represents the carbon storage and does not speak to the rate of carbon emissions or sequestration. A mature forest that is not growing or shrinking in total area grows as much as it rots and emits as much as it sinks. This is basic environmental science.

https://oldgrowthforestecology.org/ecological-values-of-old-growth-forests/ecological-processes-and-functions/carbon-sequestration-and-storage/
>Total organic matter (live plus dead) keeps increasing as old forests age and is thought to peak around 800 or 1000 years.
>Forests also return carbon to the atmosphere through the processes of respiration and decomposition. Organic matter is composed of the remains of plants and animals, and it decomposed by the soil foodweb containing myriad organisms such as bacteria and fungi.

[Anonymous No.15858274]

>>15857287
You're wrong, forests continue to sequester CO2 even after they're reached the mature stage. The link you posted does nothing to back up your claim.
Just because fungi exhales some CO2 doesn't mean that its doing so at a rate equal to whats being absorbed by the trees, mosses and understory plants.

[Anonymous No.15858284]

>>15858274
It's typical really. "Environmental Science" sequestered itself away from rigorous disciplines and now lacks even the basic fundamentals of the botanical and atmospheric sciences.

[Anonymous No.15858295]

>>15858284
You have no idea what you're talking about fucking retard. You're just saying shit to try to discredit climate scientists.

[Anonymous No.15858299]

>>15858295
>You're just saying shit to try to discredit climate scientists.
I don't need to say anything for them to discredit themselves.

[Anonymous No.15858323]

>>15858299
Regardless, we know even completely mature forests will continue to sequester carbon in the soils. Over time dead organic matter gets converted into more complex carbon molecules which get stored deeper in the soil. Even completely mature forest like the Amazon can sequester more carbon, which is why the Amazon was absorbing a large proportion of the carbon we were admitting, though now that more of it's getting chopped it's starting to become a net emitter.

This is also one reason why tree farms generally emit more carbon than they store. When you chop natural land that invites bacteria which break down the stored complex carbon molecules and it gets emitted as CO2. Younger trees don't store as much carbon in the soils, so planting and chopping trees every 5 years might eventually make up for the original emissions over time if you do it for like 40 years, but that exhausts the soils so generally it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15858330]

>>15858323
>This is also one reason why tree farms generally emit more carbon than they store. When you chop natural land that invites bacteria which break down the stored complex carbon molecules and it gets emitted as CO2. Younger trees don't store as much carbon in the soils, so planting and chopping trees every 5 years might eventually make up for the original emissions over time if you do it for like 40 years, but that exhausts the soils so generally it doesn't.
Chopping down trees to turn them into lumber for 100+ year certified high quality homes and furniture would do more to sequester carbon than any publicly subsidized project ever has.

[Anonymous No.15858452]

>>15858274
Once total organic matter peaks there's nothing to store more carbon. It decays as fast as it accumulates, that's why it's peaked. You learn this in like the first week of a freshman environmental science class.

>trees, mosses and understory plants
All of that is a part of the total organic matter.

[Anonymous No.15858489]

Why is everyone so alarmed by carbon when we have had at least 5 major ice ages in the Earth's history? That means we've had minimum 5 cool periods and 5 warm periods in Earth's history. It's a natural cycle. We're entering a warm period and eventually we'll have another cold period again.

This will happen whether or not every human dies tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.15858493]

>>15858489
People are alarmed by it because when you're alarmed it's easier to convince you to act against your own best interests.

[Anonymous No.15858500]

>>15858493
What I do find alarming is limiting human progress because of a natural cooling/warming cycle.

It is quite possible that there is a natural event that could wipe out all life on Earth (example, asteroid impact) and if humanity doesn't reach a sufficient tech level by that time we get wiped out by said natural disaster. We're more likely to die because we stunted out progress by worrying about carbon and thus died to something we didn't have the technology to overcome than we are to die to the Earth's natural warming and cooling.

[Anonymous No.15858522]

>>15833945
Executing violent criminals like we used to, utilising birth control, sex/family planning education and preventing people with major mental physical defects from breeding could all be done perfectly reasonably, ethically and voluntarily, and would save us billions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.15858921]

I guess we just have to genocide China and India, there really is no other viable alternative.

[Anonymous No.15858923]

>>15833875
>but human eugenics programs that cull genetic defects and favors for intelligence is bad
The global elite very clearly think this is good. Pay more attention.

[Anonymous No.15860092]

>>15858921
Its over for China and India

[Anonymous No.15860110]

>BEHOLD! my carbon capturing machine captures 10 tons of carbon a day! and it only needs to generate 8 tons of carbon at the nearby coal plant in electricity to operate!